Advanced settings, such as Sharpening, under Camera Settings > Picture Control in the Develop section of the Edit List palette can now be adjusted, even when Unchanged is selected for Picture Control when RAW images are opened.
The following modifications and additions have been applied to White Balance > New WB in the Camera Settings portion of the Develop section in the Edit List palette.
- An Auto 1 option has been added to White Balance > New WB options.
Capture NX 2 adjusts white balance for colors similar to those achieved in images captured with a camera's Auto 1 (Normal)*white balance setting. However, only RAW images captured with the following cameras are supported.
- The D7000 and later digital SLR cameras
- Advanced cameras with interchangeable lenses
- The COOLPIX A as well as the COOLPIX P7100 and later COOLPIX cameras that support recording in the NRW format
*Auto white balance setting with cameras that do not offer an Auto 2 (Keep warm lighting colors) option
- Adjustment units available with the Tint option have been changed from 1 to 0.01 for more precise specification.
- The adjustment range for Fine Adjustment when Direct sunlight is selected for Daylight has been expanded from 4132–7042k to 2500–7042k.
- Adjustment using Fine Adjustment and Tint is now possible when Recorded Value, Auto 1, Auto 2, or Underwater is selected.

Additional modifications to the Windows version

The following issues have been resolved.
- An error occurred when XMP/IPTC files created with Capture NX 2 Ver. 2.4.3 or earlier were opened.
- Details specified in the Print layout dialog and page setup dialog displayed with selection of Page Setup... in the File menu were not applied.

Additional modifications to the Macintosh version

Support for Mac OS X version 10.6 has been eliminated.

An issue has been resolved where image files saved to a disk formatted using the FAT32 architecture were edited and saved, editing details were not applied.

Am i reading right: no raw editing for any camera pre d7000 with the new version?

John

I think it is just raw pictures with the auto 1 option they talk about, not all raw pics.

peterw

read better

alvin

mmh..support for 10.6 eliminated ? mmh…thanks ..wtf..

Clifford Martin

Is there any more reason for Capture NX2, with Adobe Camera Raw being so good at conversions these days. I never use my copy of Capture NX2 any more.

JXVo

I still use CNX2 in preference. Partly I like that it does not strip out all the Nikon specific adjustments such as Active D lighting from my raw files.
Also, in spite of i7 processor and lots of RAM, I find that CNX2 treads a lot lighter than ACR+PS or Lightroom when processing D800 raw files.
I really like the control point adjustment system.
No subscriptions to pay
Downsides :
– Layers are more tricky
– the “Auto Retouch Brush” is no substitute for Adobe’s clone stamp
– I think CNX2 will eventually fade away and I’ll be forced to join the LR flock.

Jorge

I’m a LR user — have been since V1.0 beta. However when I want the ultimate from a raw file, I jump over to NX2. IMHO it can’t be beat. Sorry Adobe…

Patrick O’Connor

I’m only a mediocre photographer but a bit of a wizard in post. I can’t imagine anything that I can’t achieve with my current software tools and that doesn’t include NX2. So, in what way is NX2 better? I can see it being quicker, perhaps, by retaining in-camera settings but, better results? Not to say it isn’t as good…I just can’t imagine it being better. Perhaps it’s better for those individuals who are more familiar with it than ACR.

Spy Black

Check out Capture One Pro 7. More expensive than LR but has custom designed processes on a per-camera body basis.

TeaBreak

Works well with Phase One bodies, but processing NEFs is a pain when thinking about what might have been possible with NX2. I have to use Capture One Pro 7 during my photography master studies in school but it never ever matched the wonderful colours and tonal graduations I receive with NX2 at home (with the same file of course).

neversink

Yeah. I have been using capture one pro for quite a few years now. I had high hopes for version 7, but have been disappointed. I just find that the damn program freezes. I like the conversions out of COPro but find LR5 easier to work with.
The easiest is Aperture, but they haven’t upgraded in so long that I think Apple has abandoned its pro photographers.

Rudi

It doesn’t remove Active D lighting from your raw files?? D lighting and all the other image options are applied by the image processor when generating jpg in camera. Raw is raw, as the name says.

groucher

Here’s three reasons for using NX2 over anything by Adobe:

1. NX2’s RAW converter is still better than Adobe’s.
2. D-Lighting – doesn’t mangle colours as does Adobe’s Shadow/highlight tool.
3. NX2’s Selection Pen is THE most useful editing tool ever invented. The tool allows you to select multiple regions and apply any filter or effect whilst auto-blending. It can also be used in -ve mode to revert selections. Adobe has nothing like it.

Software such as Photo$hop is OK for messing about but for the fundamentals, NX2 is much superior.

Patrick O’Connor

I have very little experience with NX2 but too many professional photographers use Lightroom for you to state that “NX2 is much superior”. When your living depends on the tools you use, you’re more likely to use the best ones available.

Aldo

“professionals” use lightroom because it is easier… and it offers better workflow… that is it.

Patrick O’Connor

So how long did it take you to poll them? I couldn’t and wouldn’t suggest that NX2 isn’t really good at what it does; partly because I have little experience with it but mostly because I don’t like to make absolute statements. And I would never make such statements about what motivates other people’s actions.

Aldo

You got a good point there in your rant… but you are right… you can’t say what Nx2 is about until you use it… and you see for yourself how much better it renders raw files. A meticulous professional will go ALL the way to get the BEST results possible… even if it means using software with a “questionable” UI.

Patrick O’Connor

It must be depressing to be so sure of everything at such a young age. What will you do with the rest of your life? Oh wait. Aren’t you the guy who went on and on about how the D800 is so much better than the D600 for everything? And now…what are you shooting? I guess you’re not a “meticulous professional,” huh!?

Aldo

Well I hope I’m not as grouchy when I’m older… but what you say is inaccurate… I never said the d800 was better at everything. You could go back and re-read everything I have posted on the subject. I currently shoot with the d610 because I had the opportunity to save some money. I don’t fall in love with cameras and put them on display. I use them for work. Any current DSLR (especially from nikon) produces great images. My opinions are based on experience (for the most part). As far as this topic is concerned, I don’t seem to be the only one who notices the rendering advantages of the nikon sofware. And ‘though I may not be sure about everything… I’m sure about this one… I don’t know how much older you are than me, but you don’t seem to follow the old = wisdom cliche.

Patrick O’Connor

The wisdom I’m espousing is that you can’t be sure that CNX2 is better than ACR, anymore than you can be sure that Nikon is better than Canon or Ford is better than Chevy, etc… CNX2 and ACR both have tools to manipulate the RAW data in innumerable ways. You can argue that CNX2 is easier for you (and many others) due to your approach to editing and familiarity with the software but you can NOT argue that your results with CNX2 are necessarily better than the results I, or anyone else, can achieve with ACR.
Another thing to consider is: a meticulous professional will use more than just CNX2 or ACR to process some photos. The relative benefits of either will likely be mitigated, to some degree, within the overall process.
You are right about one thing though, for sure: arguing with strangers on internet blogs is evidence of a lack of wisdom.
p.s. Looking at your photo, I’m pretty sure all three of my children are older than you. Not that that’s a bad thing. I’m also pretty sure you’re a much better photographer than I was at your age and perhaps at my current age. Again…very few things are absolutely certain. And they loose certainty as you get older.

Aldo

I only said that the nikon software renders raw files better, not that it is better in general. I find myself using lightroom a lot more than the nikon software because it it easier to use with large numbers of files and it is more stable. It has little to do with familiarity, but rather convenience. I have also posted before that a meticulous professional will not limit himself/herself to using only one type of software for processing photographs. I welcome challenging opinions and I don’t consider this “arguing”, but I see little evidence on your part that you have experienced the benefits of the nikon software. You limit yourself to theoretical assumptions. Age has nothing to do with this subject and I don’t consider myself a better photographer than anyone. I’m always learning.

Patrick O’Connor

Now we’re getting somewhere. Please don’t misunderstand my original point. I’m not saying that Lightroom is better. I just don’t understand how anyone can say that CNX2 is absolutely better. What does “renders raw files better,” mean? If we ask 10 people, ‘which is better?’ can you absolutely say they’ll all prefer CNX2’s output? I have used CNX2 but not that much. I know enough that there are user settings that affect the output. Given that the controls are different, how can you isolate “rendering” and state it’s better?

Maybe I haven’t experienced the benefits of CNX2. I also have never experienced the benefits of Canon cameras, SAAB automobiles, homosexuality, etc. Do I have to try EVERYTHING in life? I limit myself to things I’m interested in. I’m not interested in CNX2, enough to ‘experience it’s benefits.’
But, even at my advanced age, I’m always learning and I can’t preclude the possibility that I won’t be interested enough in the future.

And STILL, I say, “Groucher” can’t accurately state that “NX2 is much superior,” and you can’t accurately state that “”professionals” use lightroom because it is easier… and it offers better workflow… that is it.” or imply that it is “better in general” due to the fact that “A meticulous professional will go ALL the way to get the BEST results possible… even if it means using software with a “questionable” UI,” which is clearly what you were doing.

Aldo

You have to understand that the scope of nikon camera users is just a portion of photographers and the photography industry itself. Some people prefer working with older nikon cameras just because they “render skin tones better” others are willing to pay 30k for a medium format body for the same reason (some even have switched to canon, again, same reason). These people most likely won’t be among the 10 average photographers you ask ” which is better”. Also asking you to experience the software that came with YOUR camera (not capture I know, but same engine) is not the same as trying homosexuality or driving a saab.

If the rendering differences between the engines don’t matter to you enough to consider using nikon software, (maybe because you can’t tell the difference or simply don’t care or your preferred software does “good enough”) don’t discard the advantages that other people have found. I will stand besides what I stated. Most professionals use lightroom or other software instead of capture because they are more workflow oriented. A lot of photographers deal with great number of files and this is why this generalization applies. Photographers who work hard on fewer files may want to be more meticulous about the overall quality and end result. Even those who work with high file volumes (including myself) go back and re-run a photo that is to be blown up through nikon software to get the best result possible. This is not uncommon.

In the end is not about “trying everything in life” but rather being aware of all the options available to make your work shine in your medium. There is a place and time for every tool… nikon software is a great tool if you know how to use it, and I’m just focusing on processing. Other people have found many other qualities that can’t be replaced by lightroom or others.

umeshrw

+1. And with the changes in the current update, CNX2 will become much faster than before. These were some serious drawbacks they have addressed now.

neversink

Are you sure that NX2 will be faster with the new update. I’m not… We can only hope so.. but I doubt it.

umeshrw

Faster in the sense of workflow and accuracy in getting what you want. Not going lighter on the system. Most of my time is spent in applying multiple adjustments to reach required colour levels.

Patrick O’Connor

Wow! Too many replies to address individually but I think you’re all tasting the secret ingredient in Po’s father’s “Secret Ingredient Soup” (Kung Fu Panda). It’s kinda like discussing art. It IS subjective and, in the end, not really that big of a deal.

I DID try NX2. If there were some magic “rendering” of skin tones, or whatever, it wasn’t apparent to me and so I didn’t explore it much further. Also, I watched Lynda.com’s video tutorial on NX2 because I thought maybe I was missing something. I’m not. It’s just a different way to get where we’re all going.

neversink

You have it all wrong. If you are a photographer and using Nikon, then you should want to explore as many possibilities as you can to find out what works for you the best. None of the post-processing programs are perfect (except for the good old days of the darkroom and film.)

So your argument about cars, homosexuality (which is not a choice,) and Canon makes no sense. No, you can’t try everything in life, but you should certainly explore your keen interests with as much gusto as you can. So if you have a passion for photography, you should explore it….

I make my living from photography, so I have no choice but to experiment and to seek out the best workflow and equipment. But it is also my passion, so I am lucky.

As far as workflow, my opinion is that Aperture offered the best workflow for years using the lead system resources, but now LR5 is better and has more advanced tools. Capture One Pro is frustrating, but it does have great conversions. Unfortunately, NX2, which may have the best Nikon raw conversion, is the most frustrating to use.
Nikon should invest more in updating their software.
Further post processing in PS or NIK or similar products should always be considered. I rarely use PS anymore, but sometimes I might throw my images into Silver Efex Pro, Sharpener Pro and/or Dfine (Nik products.)
Actually, I think Aldo statements about LR5 are true. Many pros I know use LR5 because of its simplicity, but they don’t use it exclusively. I converted to LR less than a year ago (after having tried it a number of times in the past) as my main post processing program, after using PS, Aperture, and Capture One for years. I also have used NX2 with incredible results, but can achieve the same quality in the other programs with less hassle.

The algorithms in LR seem to have improved since I first tried it.

I’d be happy if I never touched PS again (but I probably will.) It is too bloated — but great for pixel by pixel manipulation if that is what you need.

That being said, I still would love to see an Aperture upgrade.

Oh yes, you appear to be a “grouchier” as you call it yourself. Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones….. Be well.

Patrick O’Connor

(see my reply to Aldo, above). I’d only add that your reply doesn’t appear to be making any specific point. As for homosexuality, in some cases it’s not a choice and in others, it is. As for glass houses, I’m homeless (metaphorically speaking).

Mike

“What does “renders raw files better,” mean?”

It means, that you won´t get junk!!! But to get it, you HAVE to try it!!! You get it?

Patrick O’Connor

So everyone who shoots with a Nikon camera, in RAW, but doesn’t use NX2 is getting junk… Do you really want to go with that? Seriously?
Now I get it!
…how come you don’t have a nose? 😉

umeshrw

” You can argue that CNX2 is easier for you (and many others) due to your approach to editing and familiarity with the software but you can NOT argue that your results with CNX2 are necessarily better than the results I, or anyone else, can achieve with ACR.”
We are saying exactly the opposite. CNX2 is very hard to work with but we can surely say that the results are definitely superior to PS or LR. ( Even when ACR is changed to camera profile.

Patrick O’Connor

Easier to get the results you want; not easier in a general way.
As for results, after a certain point it is DEFINITELY subjective and you can’t say, accurately, that one is better than another. A certain percentage of the population will think it is while others may disagree. It’s not like saying, “we need oxygen to live.”

umeshrw

All I can say is.. We can make out the substantial difference so it is important to us. The others are either indifferent or need faster results

neversink

I agree, but only to a point.
NX2 is sooooooooo slowwwwwwwwwww….. It takes all the joy out of post processing.
I am using a souped up 2011 Mac Book Pro with a dedicated second LED monitor. Perhaps I should upgrade. Been thinking of getting Mac Pro, but shlepping it to Kenya with a new monitor is a drag. Perhaps a newer Mac Book Pro would show improvement for NX2 and COPro7.

Mike

Yes, you should. The first you should do is buy an SSD…

umeshrw

Just like much more of photographers use canon cameras?

Patrick O’Connor

Sorry. I don’t understand your point.

umeshrw

” I have very little experience with NX2 but too many professional photographers use Lightroom for you to state that “NX2 is much superior”. When your living depends on the tools you use, you’re more likely to use the best ones available.”

Patrick O’Connor

Oh. Well that makes sense then. I see your point but, as I stated, “you’re more likely to…”. There are other factors as well. In the case of Canon vs. Nikon, at any given point in time, one may produce a generally better camera in a given price point or at least have features that are more important to a particular photographer and so Canon or Nikon may be superior for that individual, at that time. Of course there are other factors such as brand loyalty, financial commitments, etc. Generally, though, they’re both great camera systems and you’d be hard pressed to say one is definitively better than the other. My point is: the same applies to software, in general, and LR vs NX2, specifically.

TeaBreak

There are professionals who use NX2. Me for example. Love it, great results, far superior to LR / Abobe Camera Raw.

Patrick O’Connor

I didn’t say that no professionals use NX2. I said that most use Lightroom. That doesn’t make either better than the other. I’m glad you “love it” but the “far superior” results you see are subjective, not objective. You guys are obviously emotionally invested in NX2 and disinterested in the world beyond your own particular tastes.

TeaBreak

That’s not true, I’ve even bought LR5 because I like it’s UI and was very interested in how to get the best results for my NEFs (D200, D3). After 4 months testing hundreds of presets I give up … no chance to get the natural colour glance and finest tonal graduation that NX2 produces in a second. That why I called NX2 far superior.

Patrick O’Connor

Presets? Perhaps this isn’t the case but, it sounds like you were looking for instant results with little work. Of course that would be wonderful but I’ve never seen the software that could do that. I’m really not trying to be argumentative but I think you guys (individually and/or collectively) are confusing subjective preference with objective superiority. Individuals have differing tastes in everything, but somehow you’re all sure this doesn’t apply to the post processing of photography.

umeshrw

He he. We know how leica users feel.

Patrick O’Connor

I only know how the pretty ones feel. You can feel the others… 😉

Mansgame

1. Because Nikon with-holds that information from 3rd parties. If they made it open source, Adobe would do it much better than Nikon because Nikon is not a software company and they’re average at best when it comes to that.

2. Sounds like you don’t know how to use it.

3. Oh yeah, all the graphics designers in the world are lining up to use Nikon’s software instead of Photoshop. No wait, they aren’t.

4. your last paragraph is the most ignorant thing I’ve read on here and that’s saying a lot. Photoshop is ok for “messing about”?? that’s like saying Autocad is just ok for messing about, but the drawing tools that come with Powerpoint are for fundamentals. You do realize that pretty much any image you see in a magazine was edited in Photoshop don’t you?

Gene Forsythe

Two points I will make here.

First. I have an engineering degree (actually, two) and the first sentence of the second bullet is completely incomprehensible. The defines the reason I left the program some 5 years ago — the Japanese are so ego-centric they refuse to have a native English speaking technical editor involved in their software and their publicity.

Second. The list of “problems” fixed from the prior version demonstrate just how poorly the software is written and (not) tested for significant customer utility issues.

JXVo

He he he…. I also have 2 engineering degrees. I agree that sentence is not well crafted. However, if you used CNX2’s “Develop” options regularly with NEF files you would understand exactly what they are referring to. It is a welcome improvement.

Stoned

Most of the engineers I new at college were too drunk to speak any language comprehensibly.

Dr. Dre

“I have an engineering degree (actually, two) and the first sentence of the second bullet is completely incomprehensible”

Two engineering degrees and you still can’t understand a single sentence? If I were you I’d ask for a refund.

“the Japanese are so ego-centric they refuse to have a native English speaking technical editor…”

No. It’s some of the native English speakers that are so ego-centric they think the whole world turns around them. And those are usually the ones whose sole “knowledge” in foreign languages consists of the sentence “una serveza por favor”.

“The list of “problems” fixed from the prior version demonstrate just how poorly the software is written..”

Wrong again. It just demonstrates that it’s just a piece of software and there are always issues and bugs in software.

Just saying. If you are going to beat on english speakers, at least spell words correctly in what may be your native language (spanish)? And I’m just making an assumption here. Sorry if I offend.

foreigner

ma che stai a di?

Patrick O’Connor

I’ve worked with hundreds of engineers over the years – can’t say how many degrees they have – and I’ve never met one who could string together a handful of words in any meaningful way. I could point out a few errors in your post but that’s not my purpose. My wife happens to be Japanese and I have more than a little experience dealing with Japanese at the personal and professional level. They’re just like every other group of people. Some are arrogant, egotistical a$$holes, while others are the nicest, must humble, self-effacing individuals you could hope to meet. Please stop to think more carefully before publishing your thoughts.

Jorge

I have a simple question:
I already own CNX2.3.x Is this an upgrade? or a new full version I have to purchase? I hope it’s just an upgrade…

Jorge

Question answered from Nikon site:

“This is the Capture NX 2.4.6 software download – This software updates Capture NX 2.3.0 – 2.4.5 to version 2.4.6. This is a full version installer. When this updater software is run, it may be necessary to enter the product key again to confirm ownership of previous version of this software.”

El Aura

Stupid questions, most camera makers claim to have improved the image quality (‘thanks to the advanced processors’) when releasing new cameras. And their certainly are some tweaks in most if not all cameras. My question whether supporting a new camera just means recognising the new raw file ‘format’ or whether it means those tweaks (which can be an improved NR algorithm) are added to Capture NX, either just for enabling Capture NX to match the camera jpeg or also to improve the raw conversion of file from other camera models?

Now, I know that that is a bit too simplistic, computers have more computing power than cameras and at least in the past that has meant better but more computationally expensive algorithms can and are used.

Or is this article in essence already answering my question as such that the addition of the ‘Auto 1′ WB setting is such a capability transfer?

peterw

* capture nx2 is now able to do what some camera’s were able to do for a while. I guess there are some more in camera options which are not supported by Capture, like combining multiple photo’s to one picture for D800. Just like there will be possibilities Capture has, which are not a feature of the camera.

* Adding D3300 means it can read the files and the headers of D3300 NEF files. Like Lightroom will be able to read the files and some of the header values. Not nescessarily that Capture can apply the same gimmicks the D3300 offers.

* Don’t underestimate the power of a dedicated chip versus a multi task computer.

* Tweaking image quality in camera’s is very much more than enhancing NR (noise reduction you mean I assume?). It has little to do with capture NX thought. It has to do with the quality of sensor and (low-pass) filters, with reading, handling, processing and writing sensor data to jpeg or nef. It has little to do with in camera gimmicks.

Did I answer your questions?

Mansgame

the 10’s of people who use it will appreciate it I’m sure. Meanwhile I’m sticking with Lightroom.

brn

Capture NX2 is not a competitor for Lightroom.

Mansgame

Nikon obviously thinks so or they would release their camera info to Adobe so we’d all benefit.

neversink

The reason they don’t release their NEF propriety info, is that they don’t want other camera manufacturers copying the look of what comes out of their cameras. If they went open source, all cameras might start having that Nikon look we all like. And I don’t think Nikon can afford to do that.

Red

I respectfully disagree. The file format has nothing to do with the look. It is the in-camera firmware and processing units that are responsible for that. Otherwise you would get the same look from the different manufacturers that use the same standardized DNG format.

peterw

you disagree only very slightly, if at all.

Red

How’s that? What I’m saying is that the NEF file format, or any other image file format for that matter, is just a container and does not have any influence on the processing of the data it contains. So the way how Nikon get to their look can still be kept secret even if the NEF specs were made public. No other manufacturer will be able to copy that just by looking at the NEF specs.

Red

They don’t need to release any camera info to anyone. All they need to do is standardize their NEF file format and make its specifications 100% public. But I guess they are playing the same old game Microsoft was playing for years by hiding about 15-25% of the specifications of their office file formats and changing them often to make importing them into third-party software products as hard as possible.

Red

The other nice side effect for Microsoft was that even their own older versions of MS office weren’t able to read the newer files, so the users where forced to upgrade to the newer version if they wanted to exchange office documents with others

AM

Has anybody on this forum used DXO Optics Pro?

http://tech.t9i.in/ Tahir Hashmi

I have used DxO Optics Pro v. 6, 7 and 8, and I vastly prefer Capture NX2, except for features that are missing in it (Volume Anamorphosis, Perspective Correction).

DxO Optics Pro defaults give a more pleasing look to begin with, but I find it easier to push the limits in Capture NX2. I also used to believe that Lens Softness is a great tool in DxO, but I later found that Capture NX2 can extract details better.

DxO Optics Pro is easier to handle for beginners, but it doesn’t go much far from there. The thing with Capture NX2 is that it keeps delivering better and better results as your skills with it grow.